Analysis for Critical Thinkers

President Obama was said to be “furious” at BP for the last month and a half because of the oil spill accident in the gulf. When some of his supporters were critical of his handling of the emergency, he was apparently told to start showing his anger. The now-famous quote of him looking to find out “whose ass to kick” was presumably an attempt to show his critics just how angry he really is. But we do not need to “kick any asses” here. Rather than looking to “beat up” people from BP or punch oil workers – even figuratively – the President would be better off exploring ways to help plug the leak. Anger here seems to be inappropriate and certainly non-productive.

 Perhaps “frustrated” would be a more natural response than “furious”. The public, having less control than the President in solving this emergency is surely frustrated. But even some in the public are angry. Boycotting BP and damaging BP stations is the work of angry and frustrated people but does little toward helping the crisis. It iseasier to be emotional than helpful though I suppose.

President Obama has spoken of anger in the past as well – also in an inappropriate situation. Remember when the police officer from Massachusetts responded to the reported burglary in progress? The neighbor had called the police with a description of the suspected burglar. When the police arrived, they in fact found a subject fitting that description. The suspect, we now know,was in fact the homeowner – who was angry at the police for investigating.(!?) When discussing the illogical response of the homeowner, the President actually said that “anybody would be angry” under those circumstances. Again, … anger? I don’t know… if the police responded to my house to investigate a possible burglary in progress called in by my neighbor, I do not think that I would be “angry” or “furious”. More likely, “thankful”. I would more likely invite both the neighbor as well as the police officer back to my house later to thank them at a “beer summit” of my own rather than hold a press conference complaining about something and being angry.

You see anger reported in many situations where it does not make much sense. Anger at Wall St. workers. Anger at other successful companies. Anger at George Bush. But what specifically are you angry about – and why? Is it really anger or is it frustration? If it is really anger though, consider settling down a bit and examining  just how you may contribute to a solution to a perceived problem.

Getting back to the President though… What good is anger in dealing with emergencies such as an oil leak? If my house is on fire and I am trapped inside, I do not need someone to “kick some ass” or to promise me that they will prove whose fault it was, I need help right now. It is of no solace to know that you are “furious” at my fire and does me no good that people will be boycotting the builders of my house. Rather than emotion and rhetoric, I need to be rescued. We’ll worry about everything else, such as finger-pointing, later.

Before I was old enough to vote, I still remember looking at the Presidential candidates and noticing that there were always people from other “third parties” running for office. You never really heard of these people in regular conversation because, I suppose, they had little if any chance of winning the election. One such candidate ran throughout the 70’s and early 80’s. His name was Gus Hall from the Communist Party USA. It intrigued me that anybody from any political persuasion could run for President. What a free country!  Without knowing too much at all about the politics of Mr. Hall, I wondered what would happen if he in fact did win the office of President. In my naive teenager mind, I figured, mistakingly, that if this country decided to elect a Communist as President then that was our choice as a country. After all, we live in a democracy and majority rules! If a majority of people want to change to a socialist system or a communist system of government, then we simply go to the ballot box right?

Wrong, as it turns out. It wasn’t until AFTER I got out of public school that I learned that we do not it fact, live in a democracy. Majority does not rule. We live in a Representative Republic with a limited federal government that has specific enumerated powers. We have a Constitution that is very specific as to what the federal government can do. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. We cannot simply elect a President and a  new form of government because the form of government that we have is mandated in the Constitution.

So even if we elect a socialist or a communist into office, we are still a representative republic.

Some people, including members of the current Obama Administration, believe that Big Government can do as it pleases – as long as it has the votes in Congress. “We won, you lost – get over it.” They believe that they can do what they want unless the Constitution prohibits it. This type of thinking is exactly the opposite of reality. In truth, the Constitution declares that the federal government can do NOTHING – UNLESS it is specifically ALLOWED in the Constitution. Just the opposite of Big Government. Simply being the party in power does not allow you to change our form of government.

There exists a legitimate method of changing the Constitution – and that procedure is specifically spelled out in the Constitution itself. It is not easily done, although it has been done 27 times so far. This is of course, an important safety feature built in by our founding fathers to preserve all that they worked so hard to create. The Constitution and its Amendments make for interesting – and to some – shockingly-eye-opening reading. Copies are available for free on many web sites and in libraries throughout the world.